We've looked at care from both sides now: The effects of alternative evaluation strategies on study conclusions

Robert L. Kane; Rosalie A. Kane

doi:10.1080/08959420902955867

We've looked at care from both sides now: The effects of alternative evaluation strategies on study conclusions

Robert L. Kane, Rosalie A. Kane

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

This study uses two studies about the role of managed-care programs in serving Medicaid long-term care clients in Florida to illustrate how different research designs can reach divergent conclusions. Two reports from different groups using essentially the same database to assess the impact of managed care on a group of older Medicaid clients served by a Nursing Home Diversion Program reached different conclusions. The report from Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability concluded that the Diversion program saved money, whereas the report from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida reached basically the opposite conclusion. Both agreed that the capitation rate was too high. How the policy questions are framed and analyzed can affect the conclusions reached. A variety of factors can influence the apparent effects of programmatic interventions. Evaluations must take relevant confounding variables into account.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	246-255
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Aging and Social Policy
Volume	21
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420902955867
State	Published - 2009

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by a Task Order (#CMS-04-0014) under a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Master Contract between CMS and the CNA Corporation (Master Contract #500-00-0035), Arlington, Virginia, with a subcontract to the University of Minnesota. The statements and opinions in the report are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of CMS or any of its staff or the state liaisons to the project. The authors would like to thank Glenn Mitchell and Larry Polivka from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida and Steve Harkreader from Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability for so generously sharing their analyses and providing insights. However, the responsibility for the final product rests solely with the authors. It reflects neither these institutions nor CMS.

Keywords

Home-and community-based care
Long-term care
Policy analysis

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access

10.1080/08959420902955867

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{7f89a66f4ce1484381a5b82778e067ee,

title = "We've looked at care from both sides now: The effects of alternative evaluation strategies on study conclusions",

abstract = "This study uses two studies about the role of managed-care programs in serving Medicaid long-term care clients in Florida to illustrate how different research designs can reach divergent conclusions. Two reports from different groups using essentially the same database to assess the impact of managed care on a group of older Medicaid clients served by a Nursing Home Diversion Program reached different conclusions. The report from Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability concluded that the Diversion program saved money, whereas the report from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida reached basically the opposite conclusion. Both agreed that the capitation rate was too high. How the policy questions are framed and analyzed can affect the conclusions reached. A variety of factors can influence the apparent effects of programmatic interventions. Evaluations must take relevant confounding variables into account.",

keywords = "Home-and community-based care, Long-term care, Policy analysis",

author = "Kane, {Robert L.} and Kane, {Rosalie A.}",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported in part by a Task Order (#CMS-04-0014) under a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Master Contract between CMS and the CNA Corporation (Master Contract #500-00-0035), Arlington, Virginia, with a subcontract to the University of Minnesota. The statements and opinions in the report are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of CMS or any of its staff or the state liaisons to the project. The authors would like to thank Glenn Mitchell and Larry Polivka from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida and Steve Harkreader from Florida{\textquoteright}s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability for so generously sharing their analyses and providing insights. However, the responsibility for the final product rests solely with the authors. It reflects neither these institutions nor CMS.",

year = "2009",

doi = "10.1080/08959420902955867",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "21",

pages = "246--255",

journal = "Journal of Aging and Social Policy",

issn = "0895-9420",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - We've looked at care from both sides now

T2 - The effects of alternative evaluation strategies on study conclusions

AU - Kane, Robert L.

AU - Kane, Rosalie A.

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported in part by a Task Order (#CMS-04-0014) under a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Master Contract between CMS and the CNA Corporation (Master Contract #500-00-0035), Arlington, Virginia, with a subcontract to the University of Minnesota. The statements and opinions in the report are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of CMS or any of its staff or the state liaisons to the project. The authors would like to thank Glenn Mitchell and Larry Polivka from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida and Steve Harkreader from Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability for so generously sharing their analyses and providing insights. However, the responsibility for the final product rests solely with the authors. It reflects neither these institutions nor CMS.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This study uses two studies about the role of managed-care programs in serving Medicaid long-term care clients in Florida to illustrate how different research designs can reach divergent conclusions. Two reports from different groups using essentially the same database to assess the impact of managed care on a group of older Medicaid clients served by a Nursing Home Diversion Program reached different conclusions. The report from Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability concluded that the Diversion program saved money, whereas the report from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida reached basically the opposite conclusion. Both agreed that the capitation rate was too high. How the policy questions are framed and analyzed can affect the conclusions reached. A variety of factors can influence the apparent effects of programmatic interventions. Evaluations must take relevant confounding variables into account.

AB - This study uses two studies about the role of managed-care programs in serving Medicaid long-term care clients in Florida to illustrate how different research designs can reach divergent conclusions. Two reports from different groups using essentially the same database to assess the impact of managed care on a group of older Medicaid clients served by a Nursing Home Diversion Program reached different conclusions. The report from Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability concluded that the Diversion program saved money, whereas the report from the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida reached basically the opposite conclusion. Both agreed that the capitation rate was too high. How the policy questions are framed and analyzed can affect the conclusions reached. A variety of factors can influence the apparent effects of programmatic interventions. Evaluations must take relevant confounding variables into account.

KW - Home-and community-based care

KW - Long-term care

KW - Policy analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350736335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350736335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08959420902955867

DO - 10.1080/08959420902955867

M3 - Article

C2 - 19806930

AN - SCOPUS:70350736335

SN - 0895-9420

VL - 21

SP - 246

EP - 255

JO - Journal of Aging and Social Policy

JF - Journal of Aging and Social Policy

IS - 3

ER -

We've looked at care from both sides now: The effects of alternative evaluation strategies on study conclusions

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this